strijder20
Wallowing in irony
I'm pretty sure he wasn't really serious when saying that.
Would you go back in time to prevent your own birth for $1b?
- Thread starter warpus
- Start date
I was lol.
And Warpus why should I give a damn about your pathetic recommendations?
To add: Especially since I was the only one who got some sort of scientific debate or on the other hand a small burst of ethical discussion going. Before this this whole topic was better fit for what we in an other forum would call the vats.
And Warpus why should I give a damn about your pathetic recommendations?
To add: Especially since I was the only one who got some sort of scientific debate or on the other hand a small burst of ethical discussion going. Before this this whole topic was better fit for what we in an other forum would call the vats.
Moderator Action: Rude and inappropriate for the Chamber. Rude and inappropriate in most places.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Thanks.
If you read the history of our posts its appropriate. Crezth didn't take any offense I think.
What place do you and Walrus have to comment on things that do not concern you?
And why do you refuse to address my addition?
This thread has been a perpetual joke until I had come and certainly did not befit this forum.
In fact if someone was interested in having some form of serious discussion they could've joined in and played the devils advocate a bit.
Oh Crezth! I actually found a document by the US Navy that dismisses that the GPS would not function without this theory and that the calculations could be made anyway. But I wonder if you guys actually care. I think we're all to n00b:ish to discuss this and be able to prove anything in any direction.
I actually found it through conservopedia which makes me doubt its authenticity lol
What place do you and Walrus have to comment on things that do not concern you?
And why do you refuse to address my addition?
This thread has been a perpetual joke until I had come and certainly did not befit this forum.
In fact if someone was interested in having some form of serious discussion they could've joined in and played the devils advocate a bit.
Oh Crezth! I actually found a document by the US Navy that dismisses that the GPS would not function without this theory and that the calculations could be made anyway. But I wonder if you guys actually care. I think we're all to n00b:ish to discuss this and be able to prove anything in any direction.
I actually found it through conservopedia which makes me doubt its authenticity lol
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
I'd be interested in looking at this document as, I suspect, most physicists would. I'm sure they'd be very surprised to know that navy men managed to succeed where countless Nobel laureates have failed.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol 28_16.pdf
It's not as much as disproving the Theory of Relativity (as I and most critics claim it's a closed loop of logical thinking) but just shows that you do not need it.
Edit: Again with your arrogance to other theories. The navy/military people have developed some of the most advanced things in the world, including refining and constructing the GPS. So I don't think that what ever nobel laureates you have in mind are worth anything more.
It's not as much as disproving the Theory of Relativity (as I and most critics claim it's a closed loop of logical thinking) but just shows that you do not need it.
Edit: Again with your arrogance to other theories. The navy/military people have developed some of the most advanced things in the world, including refining and constructing the GPS. So I don't think that what ever nobel laureates you have in mind are worth anything more.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
There's a gulf of difference between engineering and theoretical physics.
I don't want to unpack this article right now, but my hunch is they contrived an alternate approach that either a.) incorrectly solves the problem, and through confirmation bias they are not aware of this, or b.) incorporates the correct solution but due to some contrivance ignores it explicitly.
I don't want to unpack this article right now, but my hunch is they contrived an alternate approach that either a.) incorrectly solves the problem, and through confirmation bias they are not aware of this, or b.) incorporates the correct solution but due to some contrivance ignores it explicitly.
lol. Dude I just doubt you're even curious about the world of possibilities outside the Theory of Relativity. But there are some interesting experiments happening soon.
In 2020 they will measure the speed of light over long distances and it is my hope that it will be influenced in different ways that predicted by this closed circuit.
And yeah, there is a huge difference. I am more the engineering type. If I can adopt a certain set of calculations derived from observations I don't go about creating fantasies about their origin that can not be proven to exist in any other way than by the affirmation of those calculations
This is why you will find the most objections coming from engineering people. From the designer of the atomic clock himself to Tesla and everything between.Although there also exist physicists who oppose and as we had the debate have come up with alternative theories to some things in the universe that they can not adopt, not because they don't seem to prove themselves but because they don't fit relativity.
Maybe the reason for the divide that often comes up between engineers and theoretical academics is their way of reasoning.
An engineer needs to have something actually working to be able to prove it is real or get any credentials from the community at all. Thusly every large project starts with small in-house models. A theoretical academic needs only to defend his or her theory from disproof.
But that's an other story.
In 2020 they will measure the speed of light over long distances and it is my hope that it will be influenced in different ways that predicted by this closed circuit.
And yeah, there is a huge difference. I am more the engineering type. If I can adopt a certain set of calculations derived from observations I don't go about creating fantasies about their origin that can not be proven to exist in any other way than by the affirmation of those calculations
This is why you will find the most objections coming from engineering people. From the designer of the atomic clock himself to Tesla and everything between.Although there also exist physicists who oppose and as we had the debate have come up with alternative theories to some things in the universe that they can not adopt, not because they don't seem to prove themselves but because they don't fit relativity.
Maybe the reason for the divide that often comes up between engineers and theoretical academics is their way of reasoning.
An engineer needs to have something actually working to be able to prove it is real or get any credentials from the community at all. Thusly every large project starts with small in-house models. A theoretical academic needs only to defend his or her theory from disproof.
But that's an other story.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
You don't know that. I'm an engineer and I have enough experience dealing with general relativity to know that I don't know enough to argue against it.
Did you actually read the article? It explicitly mentions that the clocks on the satellites have an offset (page 5, just above formula 10) due to relativistic effects. Since this offset is already taken into account by the satellites, the end users (for whom this article is written) don't have to adjust for this effect. The other relativistic effects are relatively small and can be approximately semi-classically "Close enough for government work".
Also, this paper cites and disagrees with the paper you cited: Relativity in the global positioning system, N. Ashby, http://147.91.102.6/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf
edit: The paper you linked to also seems to be cited mainly by people who bring it up along a line of "recently there has been discussion about relativity and GPS", not as "This paper is totally awesome and correct"
Also, this paper cites and disagrees with the paper you cited: Relativity in the global positioning system, N. Ashby, http://147.91.102.6/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf
edit: The paper you linked to also seems to be cited mainly by people who bring it up along a line of "recently there has been discussion about relativity and GPS", not as "This paper is totally awesome and correct"
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Ondskan said:
What an utterly specious argument. The "creators" know full well that the GPS requires use of general relativity - indeed, it was designed with it in mind.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Now cease and desist in your foolishness.
Now cease and desist in your foolishness.
Nooooooooooooooooo
Moderator Action: This isn't the Tavern. Either discuss the issue or don't - Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: This isn't the Tavern. Either discuss the issue or don't - Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
The Judge told me to come by and appologize
I was drunk at the tavern this day and came back by the chamber and decided to snicker to all the snobs there.
This was wrong.
I am sorry.
I will lead a more serious debate in the future.
Honestly though having the tavern and the chamber so close isn't so bright!
I was drunk at the tavern this day and came back by the chamber and decided to snicker to all the snobs there.
This was wrong.
I am sorry.
I will lead a more serious debate in the future.
Honestly though having the tavern and the chamber so close isn't so bright!
This:
Only appeared on page 2 of this 'debate' thread. Why is this even in The Chamber?
Similar threads
